In
the last 10 years, the excessively wealthy and the private interest groups
within a variety of industries have bought the Republican and Democratic
candidates alike by bankrolling their campaigns. The financial industry
alone spent about $1 billion towards its purchase. [1]
Enron, which paid $4 million to Bush, Cheney and the Republicans
[2], got the ear of Cheney’s Energy Task Force and dictated
the terms of the energy policy to its advantage, and at great cost to the
nation, so that it could continue to bilk Californians unimpeded. Americans’
usual resignation on the eve of elections, then, is not a sign of apathy,
but an intuitive grasp of the game that corporate candidates are up to. They
have correctly surmised that there is no real distinction between the
Republican and Democratic candidates.

However, occasionally the
policies and actions of the elected-by-default officials become so
noticeably inhumane that people can no longer stomach them. At such times,
when people become involved and mobilized, a small window briefly opens to
the possibility of meaningful change; and not just substituting once
charlatan with another. To vote against the blatantly criminal policies of
Bush is a first step, but to do so only to start the cycle, yet again, with
another candidate defeats the purpose. To have a real effect, the vote
against the criminals in the White House should be linked to choosing the
right system of governance. Such a choice is predicated on deciding whether
U.S. is a corporation for the profit of a few (forever trying to “acquire”
others, as it has done in Latin America, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq), or a
nation for the benefit of its citizens and a member of a global community.

The choice of a president
is usually about personal style and political affiliation. It is often about
which candidate seems to better address the concerns of the particular
voter. In other words, the choice of the president is usually a matter of
degree, not kind. The delusion that the president is a more or less
competent representative of people’s interest, however, has finally been
dislodged by Bush’s reign. That the presidency is bought in this country has
been an open secret for a long time, but no political leader has been as
eager as Bush to advertise the fact. More importantly, Bush has not just
propped up his presidency by the likes of Enron, but he has also supplanted
democratic governance with corporate rule.

Bush’s corporate model of
governance confuses democracy with free markets. But the free markets did
not create the U.S. Constitution. Free markets may emerge in democracies,
but they are not synonymous with them. Countless examples, like Chile, show
that free market competition can lead to a healthy economic system, but is
no guarantee that such a system will be free of tyrannical rule of the likes
of Pinochet.

Unlike the democratic
principles that give each citizen an equal vote, the corporation is ruled by
holders of unequal shares. The few who own the greatest number of shares
rule the unfortunate rest, the majority. This is a good system for the
wealthy, the well-connected, and their agents, at the expense of the rest of
the citizens who are locked out of corporate ownership. It is no accident
that the Bush cabinet is made up of the CEOs of the largest U.S.
corporations. The CEOs have always had a disproportionately greater hand in
directing U.S. policy. Energy companies like Enron and Halliburton have
essentially directed the national energy policy, at the expense of the
American public.

Corporations are driven
only by the profit motive. The corporate version of America cannot help its
drive to acquisition, because it is the nature of the beast. Hegemony,
unilateralism, invasion and expropriation of other systems and countries are
natural tendencies of this corporate system, while expenditures for the
health and welfare of citizens are not. The MBA presidency, due to its
nature, is undeterred by considerations of humanist ethics. It cares little
about the life of its citizens, which it has endangered by numerous
corporate-friendly policies that have weakened the laws and regulations
previously put in place to protect the environment and the public. The CEO
of U.S. is insensitive to what his corporate policies cost the public, even
in the number of lives lost. Corporate ends justify means. We are not fooled
by the pretense of ethical consideration when the Bush administration takes
on the task of moralizing and preaching, because we know that corporations
depend on maintaining a strict corporate culture in order to ensure the
unquestioning conformity of their personnel.

In contrast to the CEO
president, whose only job is to add to the pile of profits of the top
shareholders, the responsibility of the democratic leader is to realize the
will of the people. People do not will to be without jobs, health benefits,
educational opportunity, and fair pay. People do not want their environment
polluted, trampled, and carved up for the business interest of the CEOs.
People are reluctant to put their lives in jeopardy to serve the corporate
ambitions of narcissist leaders. A democratic leader does not ignore these
facts and acts to respect the will of the public. So far, only Ralph Nader
has provided a real alternative to the corporate rule.

Kamyar Arasteh is a writer and psychologist. He is the author of
The American Reichstag: A Psychopolitical Analysis of 9/11 and Its
Aftermaths. He can be reached at:
kaar@rcn.com. REFERENCES